31,000+ scientists (9000+ w/Phds) say CO2 not causing global warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not saying anything about this one way or the other, I just don't know, but that article was published in The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons. Here is what they say about themselves:

We welcome all physicians (M.D. and D.O.) as members. Podiatrists, dentists, chiropractors and other medical professionals are welcome to join as professional associate members. Staff members and the public are welcome as associate members. Medical students are welcome to join free of charge. All are welcome to sign up for our e-mail alerts.
Click to expand...

They are doctors, dentists, and the highly discredited professionals known as chiropractors. It makes me wonder: "If this article could withstand peer review by top scientists, why was it published in the foot-doctor journal?"

I'm not saying it's not good science, but it looks bad.

Not all peer-reviewed journals are equal.

And if anyone else doesn't trust "summaries" of scientific articles put together by potentially slanted writers, here's the PDF of the article. I haven't had a chance to dig into it yet, but I'm sure somebody will want to.

http://www.jpands.org/vol12no3/robinson.pdf
 
That was who was invited to join the association but you knew that. Very intellectually dishonest to protray them as 'foot doctors'. You really have a low esteem for the intellegence of your fellow TFL member to think that would pass.

Who We Are:
AAPS is a national association of physicians dedicated to preserving freedom in the one-on-one patient- physician relationship.
AAPS members believe this patient-physician relationship must be protected from all forms of third-party intervention.
Since its founding in 1943, AAPS has been the only national organization consistently supporting the principles of the free market in medical practice.

What We've Done:
AAPS has successfully fought in the courts for the rights of patients and physicians. Victories have included:
protecting physicians against threats of HHS sanctions for unassigned billing for laboratory tests at a time when such billing was perfectly legal (AAPS v. Bowen I and II);
establishing the right of physicians to be heard in federal court in a challenge to a fee freeze (Whitney v. Heckler);
challenging HCFA's attempt to abrogate the freedom of patients and physicians to contract privately if no Medicare benefits are claimed (Stewart v. Sullivan);
bringing to light the illegal secret operations of the President's Task Force on Health Care Reform (AAPS v. Clinton).
AAPS sponsors seminars throughout the country to instruct physicians in economic, legal, and political issues pertinent to the practice of medicine.
AAPS testifies on invitation before committees in the US Senate and House of Representatives .
AAPS networks with physician and patient groups to inform the public about true free market reforms (such as Medical Savings Accounts) as an alternate to more-of-the-same nostrums that caused the crisis in medical costs.
Click to expand...
 
A peer-reviewed journal is only as good as the peers doing the reviewing. I only question the qualifications of doctors to review climate science, and question why the reviewing was not done by a traditional scientific peer-reviewed journal instead of a relatively obscure medical journal.

I'm not saying it's bad science, just that it smells fishy.

It also smells fishy that they accept chiropractors as even associate members. Chiropractors are not doctors, they are bunco salesmen. Their techniques have been entirely discredited by medical science and they are much more likely to harm people than to help them. That is fact. That is science.
 
The opinion of Chiropractors aside, an association is funded by membership dues and Chiropractors are recognized and licensed by States as a form of a Doctor. I have no reference to their level of scientific prowess beyond that.

Physicians and Surgeons do tend to be decent critical thinkers. The list at the end of the paper seems to be of quite credible people with direct expertise of the subject matter and, as said, past a Wikipedia entry I've seen no denouncing of the credibility of this peer reviewed article or any scientific arguments to it's findings.
 
Bruxley, being a chiropractor may mean that some government agency recognizes you as a doctor of sorts, but it does NOT mean you are a scientist. Just because you have a Ph.D. doesn't make you a scientist.



Well I was under the impression that scientific journals were reluctant to publish rehashed hoaxes. I am apparently mistaken.
Click to expand...

Journals don't publish hoaxes and they don't publish bad research, not intentionally, but it happens. That IS a big part of science, correcting the wrongs, shortcomings, and problems of previous research.

And I was also under the impression that peer review was about scientific method. That the data presented was derived in the standard scientific method and met the criteria of being repeatable and that the same results would be achieved should another perform the same analysis. I didn't realize every peer had to be expert in that discipline. I wasn't aware they didn't teach scientific method to all Phds.
Click to expand...

Peer review is NOT all about the scientific method. The idea behind peer review is that peers of the topic are selected to review the research being submitted for publication and they pass judgment on the submission, that judgment taking any number of possible forms. In some journals, it is essentially a voting process where the reviewers and editors each pass judgment and the editor tabulates the results and if positive, the paper is accepted. In others, peer reviews help the editor to decide if a paper is acceptable for publication.

Exactly how the peer reviewer is selected is up to the editor. How the peer reviewer reviews the paper is often up to the reviewer. In most cases, the reviewers are unpaid for their time and effort. Some will take the time to actually recheck data, calculations, and sources while others will simply read over the paper to see that it indeed sounds plausible. There are many scientific journals and those that are peer reviewed don't all do the process in the same way.

From what I can tell, you have been swept away by the fact that so many people have signed off on the research. The bottom line is, it doesn't matter how many geologists, kinesiologists, MDs, DVMs, chironpractors, physicists, mathematicians, etc. believe the research. If you have to have a petition in order to try to substantiate your point, then the validity of your point obviously isn't as clear cut and you may believe and you are essentially voting on what you think is the truth and voting isn't scientific method. It is a popularity context, especially when so many people voting aren't qualified to be peers on saying whether the research is valid or not.
 
Are MDs scientists then. Are others with Doctorates in applied science scientists then? How about post graduate degrees in applied science (Bachelors Degrees)?

The list at the end of the article paper has credibility no?

Of course truth by popular opinion has zippo credibility. Most people think if you shoot a bullet straight up in the air it will kill you when it comes down. I took the signatories as credentialed professionals willing to associate their name on a piece of published, peer reviewed scientific finding to urge the United States Government to not act on squishy science. The act was to petition their government not to make the scientific finds look more credible. The references at the bottom, the content of the findings, and a scientific journals willingness to publish after peer review and subject the work and their journal to the scientific community at large for final acceptance of rejection.

As I said, I have yet to see a scientific rebuttal to the findings or a scientific counter to it's summary conclusion. Is anyone aware of such a scientific counter to it?
 
Same Old Question?

Whether global warming is real or not is debatable. The causes can also be argued. But there is one question that I keep asking and never get an answer to.

What is the ideal temperature of the Earth?
 
What is the ideal temperature of the Earth?
Click to expand...

I don't think there is an answer to that... We have been recording the temp for how long now? 2-300 years? Out of how many that humans have existed? Who's to say we cannot evolve to adapt to different temperatures also? If not physically, mentally we get smarter so we can take care of ourselves physically...
 
They Think They Know

The Global Warmer folks think they have a handle on the ideal temperature. First of all, they did they ask the six billion people that live here if they are happy with the current climate? They can at least do a show-of-hands to see if anyone would like a few degree increase or not.

Then they totally ignored us desert dwellers. I live in a pretty parched area. What if a temperature increase turned this place into some sort of subtropical paradise?

I have come up with another question for these dingbats.

Can you point out a current weather phenomenon that has never, ever happened on this planet before modern civilization?
 
As I said, I have yet to see a scientific rebuttal to the findings or a scientific counter to it's summary conclusion. Is anyone aware of such a scientific counter to it?
Click to expand...

This is from a previous post of mine:

From Gunter Faure, 1998, Professor of Geochemistry from Ohio State University

The extent of global warming depends significantly on the response of the C-cycle to the release of greenhouse gases. If the increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 stimulates the growth of marine organisms, the increase in the oceanic biomass will result in the burial of a portion of the carbon in marine sediment, thus taking it out of circulation for long periods of geologic time. Therefore, the anthropogenic greenhouse warming of the Earth may be a short lived episode on the geologic time scale, producing an “anthropogenic super interglacial” epoch to be followed by the next glaciation mandated by celestial mechanics (Broecker, 1987). However, this long range prediction provides little comfort to humans who must cope with the effects of global warming and increased sea level in the next several centuries.
Click to expand...

Please read this carefully. If you do, then you will see that this PhD does not side with either cause. He is merely presenting a scenario that takes in account the eventual effects of increased CO2 production. Hypothetical situation ~ yes...any level of bias ~ no.



Curiosity yields evolution...satiety yields extinction.
 
This thread is hilarious

This thread started with the "petitionproject" hoax, which has been around for a decade. The history of it is right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_petition.

Now, the guy who started the thread is apparently claiming this is a "new" petition, from 2007. So answer this: how did Edward Teller, who died in 2003, at age 95, sign this "new" petition? I eagerly await the answer!

The above link points out the "new" article attached to the latest version of this old silly petition. If you want a laugh, take a look at the publication that contains this "new" article. It's a doozy, naturally, not recognized by any of the medical journal databases. Here's a tasty sample of the other "articles" it has published:

--that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional,[27]
--that "humanists" have conspired to replace the "creation religion of Jehovah" with evolution,[28]
--that HIV does not cause AIDS,[30][31]
Click to expand...

Have fun, boys. It's good for a laugh, no more.
 
Ok MedicineBow do you really believe that if manmade co2 emissions were dropped to zero tomorrow that somehow the mean temperature of the earth would magically get cooler?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top